Asylum applications hit new high while backlog falls
A total of 109,343 people applied for asylum in the year to March 2025, the highest number for any 12-month period since current records began in 2001.
The number is up 17% from 93,150 in the year ending March 2024, according to figures published by the Home Office.
The previous record was 108,138 in the 12 months to December 2024.
Migrants who arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel in small boats accounted for 33% of the total number of people claiming asylum in the year to March.
Pakistani was the most common nationality among asylum applicants in 2024/25, accounting for 11,048 people or 10.1% of the total.
This is up from 7,003 in 2023/24, when it was the third most common nationality (7.5% of the total).
Afghan was the second most common nationality among people claiming asylum in the year to March (8,069 people, 7.4% of the total), down from 9,738 (10.5%) in 2023/24 when it was the most common nationality.
Along with Pakistan, the largest increase in asylum claims in 2024/25 came from Syrian nationals, which stood at 6,175 (5.6% of the total), up from 4,232 (4.5%) in 2023/24.
The figures also show there were 109,536 people waiting for an initial decision on an asylum application in the UK at the end of March 2025.
This is down 12% from 124,802 at the end of December 2024 and is the lowest number since December 2021.
The total peaked at 175,457 at the end of June 2023, which was the highest figure since current records began in 2010.
The number of people waiting more than six months for an initial decision stood at 67,373 at the end of March, down from 73,866 at the end of December and well below the recent peak of 139,961 in June 2023.
Separate figures published by the Home Office on Thursday show the number of quarterly enforced returns of people who do not have a right to stay in the UK fell slightly from 2,365 in October-December 2024 to 2,312 in January-March 2025.
Both of these figures are higher than for any other quarter since 2018.
The Home Office is responsible for returning people to their country of origin if they do not have a legal right to remain in the UK.
There are three types of returns: enforced returns, which are carried out directly by the Home Office; voluntary returns, who are people who were facing deportation but left of their own accord, sometimes with support from the Home Office; and port returns, who are people refused entry to the UK and who have subsequently departed.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'We have substantially increased immigration enforcement, taking strong action to return more foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers who have no right to be in the UK.
'The work of Immigration Enforcement teams to substantially increase illegal working raids, returns and deportations is an important part of strengthening our border security.
'As part of the Immigration White Paper reforms, we will strengthen the rules so that more foreign national offenders can be returned.'
There were 482 enforced and voluntary returns in the three months to March of migrants who arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel in small boats.
This is down from 558 in the previous quarter.
Some 2,240 migrants who arrived in small boats were returned during the year to March, down from 2,316 in the previous 12 months.
Of the 2,240 returns in 2024/25, 80% were Albanian nationals, a similar proportion to 2023/24 (88%).
There were 5,154 returns of foreign national offenders in the year to March, the highest for any 12-month period since the year ending June 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
25 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Zia Yusuf quits Reform UK after 'dumb' burka ban question
The shock resignation comes on the day Reform hopes to cause an shock in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. John Swinney has repeatedly described the contest as a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Reform. READ MORE Mr Yusuf gave no formal reason for his departure. He tweeted: 'Eleven months ago I became chairman of Reform. I have worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30%, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results. I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time.' 11 months ago I became Chairman of Reform. I've worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30%, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results. I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and… — Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) June 5, 2025 His exit came just hours after a criticised Sarah Pochin, the newly elected Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby, over her call to ban the burka. Using her first appearance at Prime Minister's Questions, Ms Pochin called for full-face coverings to be outlawed — a move widely criticised and swiftly disowned by the party. Mr Yusuf said he had not been consulted and branded the question dumb. Responding to a user on X, he said: 'Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it was not policy. Busy with other stuff.' He added: 'I do think it is dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself would not do.' The row follows a tense few days for Reform UK, which is facing accusations of Islamophobia and race-baiting. At a press conference in Aberdeen on Monday, party leader Nigel Farage pointed to Mr Yusuf — 'Scottish-born, but comes from parents who come from the Indian subcontinent' — as evidence that Reform UK is not a racist party. Mr Farage had been responding to criticism of a campaign video that edited a 2022 speech by Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to suggest he pledged to 'prioritise' the Pakistani community — a phrase Mr Sarwar did not use. Defending the video, Mr Farage claimed the MSP had a 'record of obsession' with race. 'We do not talk about race at all,' he said. He continued: 'We think everybody should be treated equally. We object, very strongly, to the segmentation of people into different types. 'I think that speech he gave was sectarian in its very nature — 'we are the South Asian community, we are going to take over the country and take over the world'. 'We believe what he said was a form of sectarian politics and we do not like it one little bit.' Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice said the party 'would not be where we are today' without the efforts of Zia Yusuf, who has quit as chairman. Mr Tice said: 'I wish to add my huge thanks to Zia for all his hard work and major help in securing such progress and success over the last 11 months. 'We would not be where we are today without him.' Reform leader Nigel Farage said: 'I am genuinely sorry that Zia Yusuf has decided to stand down as Reform UK Chairman. 'As I said just last week, he was a huge factor in our success on May 1 and is an enormously talented person. 'Politics can be a highly pressured and difficult game and Zia has clearly had enough. He is a loss to us and public life.' A Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage could fit all of his MPs in the back of a cab, yet he can't stop them fighting among themselves. 'Reform only guarantees more Liz Truss-style chaos. Their £80 billion of unfunded commitments would lead to economic meltdown and put up everyone's mortgage and bills. They're just not credible.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Reeves hits back at spending review critics claiming ‘my choices are Labour choices'
Rachel Reeves has hit back against her critics in Labour in a passionate defence of her economic policy as she fends off a cabinet backlash over her spending review. Labour heavyweights, including Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper have been holding out on agreeing spending settlements with the Treasury, accusing the chancellor of trying to impose 'austerity 2.0' and cuts to public services. Among the issues being fought over are funding for local government finances, social housing budgets, border control, and policing. But in an exclusive article for The Independent about the announcement on extending free school meals to 500,000 more of the poorest pupils, Ms Reeves underlined her record of trying to rebalance the economy in favour of the less well off. The chancellor has leaned on her own childhood experience growing up in Lewisham during the Margaret Thatcher years, where she recalls school lessons in prefab huts, which she said sparked a 'sense of injustice'. Ms Reeves has previously spoken of the "tough choices" she has been forced to make because of the inheritance she had from the Tories. But she emphasised in her piece how she has found money for free school meals and - at a time when she is under fire for making £5bn in disability benefit cuts - and had also found the cash for above-inflation increases to universal credit from 2026. She said: 'These are our choices. They are Labour's choices. And they are the right choices. It is about breaking down barriers to opportunity, driving better behaviour, attainment and wellbeing in our schools. It's about putting more money – nearly £500 a year – back into the pockets of working parents every year. And it is about helping those who need it the most, so every child has the best start in life.' The chancellor has often been accused of being cold and out of touch by her critics, with complaints over some of the choices she has made since coming to office. She is currently looking for the estimated £5bn needed to reverse her cuts to winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners and end the two-child benefit cap. The toughest fight she is facing is with Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) where the deputy prime minister is fiercely resisting the tightening of funds for councils and cuts to the housing budget. But Ms Reeves has looked to her own background as the daughter of primary school teachers in south east London to explain her own philosophy as she approaches her announcement next week. She said: 'Like most people, my politics were shaped by my upbringing. I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s under Margaret Thatcher and John Major's governments. I saw firsthand the impact of underinvestment in our country's state schools. 'My sixth form was housed in a couple of prefab huts in the playground. The library, meant to be a sanctuary of learning, was turned into a classroom simply because there were more students than space. 'I felt then, as I do now, that successive Conservative governments did not care about schools like mine, communities like mine, or the kids I grew up with. She went on: 'That sense of injustice is why I joined the Labour Party. I wanted to do something about it. I want to tackle some of the burning injustices within our society. I wanted to give every child, whatever their backgrounds, the same opportunities to thrive. 'It is the same motivation that drives me today as chancellor of the Exchequer.' She highlighted how she had brought in leftwing policies to close the gap between the wealthy and ordinary people in the UK. 'I ended the tax loophole which exempts private schools from VAT and business rates so we could put more money into our state schools,' she said. 'I put the money aside to begin rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school to put more pounds in parents' pockets and to give children the best start in life. And it is why we have announced today that from next year we are giving every child with a parent in receipt of Universal Credit free school meals.' She added: 'Britain's renewal is about people. It is about the next generation. By investing in our children, we are investing in the future of our country, making sure that every young person can fulfil their potential, and that Britain can thrive. This is the promise of change. This is the promise we are delivering.' The intervention comes as Ms Reeves and her team in the Treasury brace themselves for criticism over expected cuts in her spending review, which sets out government finances for the coming years, next week. Already, senior Labour figures have privately attacked her for sticking to her election manifesto pledges not to raise income tax, VAT or employee contributions to national insurance. One senior source said this would mean 'there will be a lot of cuts' and the party will be forced 'to ditch many of its manifesto spending pledges.' Several Labour MPs backed by trade unions are now openly pushing for so-called wealth taxes, with a leaked memo revealing that Ms Rayner had led the charge. The deputy prime minister called for eight wealth taxes in what is seen as 'a progressive alternative' to Ms Reeves' 'austerity'. This included increasing dividend tax rates for higher earners and targeting property traders who use corporate structures to avoid stamp duty.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sadiq Khan is right: Britain must decriminalise cannabis – or remain in the dark ages
Yet another attempt to inject sanity into Britain's archaic drug laws has failed. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, last month accepted Lord Falconer's modest proposal to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of cannabis. He was stamped on yet again by that citadel of reaction, the Home Office, and its boss, Yvette Cooper. Falconer's distinguished group of lawyers, doctors and academics did not suggest legalisation. They simply argued that treating people using cannabis as criminals served no purpose. It confused soft drugs with hard, was racially biased in its enforcement, diverted police time from more pressing matters and denied help to those who needed it. An old game of media interviews is to ask politicians if they have ever taken drugs. Prime ministers from David Cameron and Boris Johnson to Keir Starmer, as well as the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, have either admitted to taking them or refused to deny it. Politicians feel that what the middle classes do at university is harmless fun. If it happens on a council estate, however, it is a route to prison. The reality is that the divide in Britain is not between those 'in favour' of cannabis and those against. It is between those who care about the impact of criminalisation and those who don't, a subset of whom merely want to sound macho. Decriminalisation in one form or another has been proposed for a quarter of a century. In 2000 the Police Foundation committee on drugs, of which I was a member, advised downgrading cannabis from a class B to a class C drug and in effect decriminalising it – but politicians never followed through. This was despite a poll by the Mirror in 1997 showing that almost two-thirds of the public were then in favour of decriminalisation. In 2004 cannabis was reduced to class C but not decriminalised. Then, in 2009, Gordon Brown played tough and returned it to class B. The then home secretary sacked the government's drug supremo, Prof David Nutt, for even breathing the word reform. By 2010 there were 43,000 convictions a year for drug possession, more than half of them for cannabis. An internal government report recommended decriminalisation in 2016 but was suppressed. The government even denied a freedom of information request, as if national security were at stake. The more studies and inquiries recommended reform, the more Whitehall dug in. Courts and jails became increasingly clogged and have remained so ever since. The hottest market for cannabis in Britain is now his majesty's jails. The UK is adrift in the western world in still wasting billions on its 'war on drugs'. Half of US states have legalised and licensed cannabis, including cities such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. In California there are cannabis cafes, cannabis farming estates and even cannabis sommeliers. Of course there have been problems, not least with hard drugs in libertarian Oregon. New York's licensing system has not worked, with illegal outlets outnumbering legal ones. But no one wants to go back. As it is, more Americans today smoke cannabis than tobacco, including an astonishing five times more among those aged 18 to 34. There has been no noticeable collapse in American people's health. Even Donald Trump favours legalising cannabis for personal use in his home state of Florida. Other countries, such as Canada and Uruguay, have legalised cannabis. Many more have decriminalised possession, including Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Spain and, as of last year, Germany, where individuals can grow and use small quantities. Plenty of British police forces have also gone down the Falconer route to some degree. There has been de facto decriminalisation in Durham and a number of other forces, as well as a successful but not repeated Metropolitan police trial in Lambeth, south London, in 2001. Other countries have researched, experimented and innovated. They have found ways to handle cannabis without disaster. Many places, such as Colorado, have taxed it and seen a boost in local revenue. Strong cannabis, or skunk, is bad for you but large numbers of Americans are clearly finding cannabis preferable to tobacco. It is not going away, any more than alcohol or cheeseburgers. British home secretaries behave like the politics addicts they are. They close their eyes and ears and scream. The real issue in Britain is not drugs. It is the systematic ruining by the state at vast expense of tens of thousands of young lives each year. The damage is done not by cannabis, but by criminalisation, which draws young people into gangs that deal it and from there towards hard drugs and imprisonment. The result is that society suffers a monster misdirection of police resources. Violent crime in London has increased almost every year for the past decade. There has been a rise in sexual assault, car and phone thefts and petty fraud. Shoplifting in London rose by an extraordinary 54% last year. Imagine how much time the police would have were they not spending so much of it stopping, searching, and testing people for drugs. Volunteers struggling to combat drug use – defying the government by testing drugs at music festivals, combating Glasgow's drug problem and keeping children out of county lines – have known one thing for the past quarter century. Whatever needs to be done about drugs, the criminal law as enforced in Britain is a useless answer. Police forces and charities have tried to advance decriminalisation against rigid opposition from Whitehall. As for elected mayors and local discretion, forget it. Westminster's contempt for local democracy is unrivalled. The truth is that what is lacking is not more reports or more brains, it is more guts. On drugs, Britain is still in the dark ages. Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
